Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Says It Has Conducted Nuclear Test
ScentCone writes "North Korea says that it has conducted its first nuclear weapons test and 'brought happiness to its people.' Japan and China earlier issued an unusual joint statement saying that such a test would be 'unacceptable.' As of 11:10PM EST, the USGS says that it has not detected any unusual seismic activity on the Korean peninsula in the last 48 hours." From the article: "The North said last week it would conduct a test, sparking regional concern and frantic diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Pyongyang from such a move. North Korea has long claimed to have nuclear weapons, but had never before performed a known test to prove its arsenal. The nuclear test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (0136 GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, Yonhap reported, citing defense officials." Update: 10/09 05:50 GMT by J : The U.S. Geological Survey reports a 4.2 magnitude quake; South Korean news is reporting a 3.58 magnitude event; the White House apparently confirms a nuclear test.
I think you meant that headline to say "Bush administration secretly tells N. Korea to announce that they have conducted their first nuclear test before the November election".
So which is worse? Clinton giving them the reactors (because they promised not to use the technology for a weapons program). or being a member of a company that produced the rectors that Clinton gave N. Korea. I know what you are trying to imply... I don't think it will come out like you planned...
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
You cant say that NK is bat fuck insane, look at goddam America! I mean, cmon, tell me, or use Wikipedia if you have to, who is the self proclaimed single "superpower" in the world? And who is the only country, EVER, to have launched nuclear bombs onto another country, knowing they would kill hundreds of thousands? Damn right, just think before running your mouth.
---
Knock that shit off right now.
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
Actually, dipshit, it has to do with the fact that within 24 hours of any attack by us, even without nukes between 1-2 million South Korean Civilians living in Seoul would be dead. That's how much conventional artillery they have pointed at SK.
So what will you do. Wait another 20 years so NK can build an arsenal of 200 nukes? If we invade now, they may nuke South Korea, but what's worse, waiting 20 years, invading, and they nuke South Korea, Japan, USA, Australias. I'm upset that we are so bogged down in Iraq. 50 years ago we tried to do the right thing in N Korea, and look at us now. Those soldiers have died for nothing. They fought for hills in N Korea, then retreated and nothing was accomplished. We need to realize that NK, not Iraq, is a real threat to the USA.
That missile test they did was succesful by the way, they just blew it up so it couldn't be retrieved in intl waters.
I'm upset that we have our hands tied when we can do nothing when the real threat is right in front of us. How naive we were to go into Iraq, we should have been in N Korea. Let's hope that we can bring peace to our grandfathers/uncles who still have haunting memories of war in N Korea. Let's withdraw from Iraq and invade N Korea, this time we get the Chinese on our side.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Actually - outside of the British nuke and possible the French one, every President who was in office when such a nation was born has been 'asleep at the wheel'. Every one of them has come as a near complete surprise. (The South African bomb was a particularly nasty surprise.) Then there is the ongoing Brazilian/Argentinian nuclear development standoff - which is heating up again, and of which most Slashdotters seem ignorant of the existence of.
If you meant 'Bush did nothing about this bomb when he could have', then you live in a fantasy world. (Clue - China has been a roadblock to handling NK once and for all since the start of the Korean War.)
Anyone who thinks that there was not ample evidence of a strong possibility of Iraqi WMD is, quite frankly, delusional or utterly ignorant of the facts - there is no third possibility. (And, contrary to popular belief, a 'strong possibility' is about as good as it gets in the intel and inspection worlds.)
Anyone who thinks the President can't do more than one thing at a time is beyond delusional - he lives in a paranoid little fantasy world of his own.
BUSH and the REPUBLICANS LIE THEIR ASSES OFF to the American people to stir up a bullshit, phoney war in Iraq-- on the pretext that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction-- and does ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING regarding North Korea-- who DEMONSTRABLY HAS Weapons of Mass Destruction (but no oil... oops, did I say that out loud???) So whatcha gonna do now Bush, you arrogant, fucking asshole? You SHOULD apologize to the American people and then check yourself into Guantanamo. I am sick and tired of being fed lies and bullshit by the BUSH Administration and the SLEAZY SCUMBAG REPUBLICAN party.
Dems aren't much better but at LEAST they aren't REPUBLICANS.
It's not a nuke
You're so smart and brave to say this! I'm glad you're not a country president.
Even if it's not a nuke, it's a lot more sad: it's the desparate attempt of a nation to protect itself against inevitable invasion from hostile forces.
If it's just a big pile of TNT, they can't react in the case of an actual attack.
Pretty much like this butterfly trying to convince this guy that it simply wants to be left alone.
Poor kids crawling through the dirt to do the dying. Rich kids getting commissions to drive their air-conditioned humvees. Politicians kids getting dispensation to stay home and help daddy with politican campaign.
How many CONGRESS OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT'S KIDS AT WAR????
-- ZERO --
Any questions?
(yeah, I have a few)
If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?
The question was actually whether he stlll had them. His use of chemical weapons and his program to develop nukes was not in doubt.
Well neither is Kim Jong-il. What are we doing about that??
Nothing.
North Korea doesn't have anything we want.
No oil.
Too bad, so sad.
It's like a big huge photorealistic RPG, with devastating consequences.
Here's how things will play out:
US denies this was a nuclear test, Korea demanding it is
US will collect intelligence (only a guess:), realizing it's not real, at which point they will most likely start saying the opposite publically, to gain support for invading the country from the general public.
The big and very tricky part is, you gotta be insane to invade a country that has nukes in their arsenal. USA will only attack Korea if they're sure they don't, but will have to claim officially they do and YET convince people that an invasion is the correct course of action anyway (remember Iraq).
US attacks North Korea, no nukes, repeat same mess as in Iraq.
Iran switches to defensive and performs a "nuclear test"... Repeat until all target countries invaded.
You see, the governments of those countries know that invasion is inevitable. Those tests, claims and so on they push are a last measure in attempt to scare US away. Of course US has the resources to bend all this in their favor.
Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)
I'm getting a little tired of this, the US is NOT AT WAR, it takes an act of concress to declare a war and such an act did not take place.
There's a whole bunch of acting (pun intended) going on that would like to make you believe otherwise.
The really interesting question is if the Democrats should they (and diebold willing) win the elections: "are they going to impeach or do they have too much egg on their faces ?"
MP3 Search Engine
The headline that would cause the US to invade North Korea isn't North Korea says it has conducted nuclear tests, but North Korea discovers large deposit of oil.
Sorry the TARDIS had a glitch.
Glad you're not the BBC, or you'd make a story spanning four weeks out of it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The pinnacle of liberalism: redefining the terms until they fit your own world view.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The US can sell to the highest bidder. That's the real threat -- not missiles/warheads launched from Washington, but missiles/warheads shipped out from Washington.
Israel will be sending their emissaries to the US, along with fat checkbooks.
Because the US will indeed sell. They will do anything that gets them oil and or influence.
but they could certainly sell it to (insert terrorist group here) and load it onto a shipping container to bring into a port...
And you demoncrats don't blame everything in the history of the universe on Bush? ROFLMAO
Let's see, Republicans are at least more realistic in where the blame should go. Let's take a look at these facts.
If clinton would have been on the ball instead of thinking with his balls, bin laden would have been caught as he had several chances to get him and chose not to.
Clinton sold the nuclear technology to N Korea, think of albright and carter.
Iran isn't going to deply nuclear weapons into the US, you stupid fuck. Stop repeating propogranda. Iran, unlike the US, isn't batshit insane and knows that making a war with the US nuclear is about the only possible way to lose it. They wouldn't use a nuke against the US because they don't need one. They could invade Iraq and we'd have no way to stop them, and they don't fucking want to invade the US. (An invasion of the US by Iran would go almost as poorly as the US invading Iran.)
They might nuke Irsael, but I seriously doubt it. That's the cause of all their nuke research, a nuclear Israel. If Israel wants to nuke them, they want to be able to nuke back.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
When we talk about North Korea we are talking about a nation that has managed to kill of 10% of its fucking population in under a decade. They test chemical weapons on humans.
When we talk about the United States we are talking about a nation that has managed to kill off over a hundred million of the original inhabitants of the land, transported and enslaved tens of millions of people from Africa, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with nuclear weapons, and tested nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons on both their own civilians and civilians in Asia, Central America, and Caribbean nations.
No fucked up sense of justice justifies letting North Korea have nukes.
Actually, a lot of reasons exist that justify "letting" North Korea have nukes:
1. NK, bad as it is, is a sovereign nation using their own resources to produce nukes. The concept of "sovereign nation" is what prevents the French from telling Americans not to talk about the Nazis, the Saudis from wiping Israel off the map, and the nations of Africa from invading the USA to liberate American blacks.
2. Every nation in the world will eventually have nukes. You can wish it were different all you want, but there is no stopping technology from getting into the hands of everyone, whether you think they are wrong or not. Diplomacy is needed more than ever.
3. As an American citizen, I applaud the efforts of any nation to take steps to prevent our war-hungry government from wasting our lives and resources to enrich their buddies. When we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam, we became a better people, more inclined to think things through before unleashing military hell on another people. We have regressed, and now think we can run the world. When the world finds means to resist, we will again be a better people.
I don't believe the US government lied to its allies about WMD's.
They lied to everybody. And by "they" I mean the Bush Administration.
I do believe that the CIA, MI6, and all several other intelligence agencies said they believed WMD's were in place and a threat.
Nope. With the possible exception of MI6, they were drug kicking and screaming into this mess by the neocons in the executive branch.
If you (and the world) seriously believe that Bush *lied* before the war, you need to also attack the other countries that believed there were WMD's
"Other countries" pretty much consists of Britan. And while much of the world was surprised that Saddam didn't have a few squirreled away, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if he had - because the Bush line was that Saddam was such an imminent threat that could not wait for sanctions or diplomacy and had to take him out now. That is what the war was sold on, not the possibility that he might have a couple SCUD missles with mustard gas warheads hidden under a sand dune somewhere.